During Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments, Scalia challenged the health care law’s individual mandate which calls for virtually all Americans to have health insurance.

The conservative-leaning justice asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli why the administration was defining the health care market so broadly and then correlated it with being forced to buy a certain food at the supermarket.

“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,” Scalia said.

Verrilli responded that buying food in the supermarket is “unpredictable and often involuntary,” unlike purchasing garcinia cambogia extract health insurance.

Scalia compared that line of thinking to forcing someone to buy a car.

“[I]f people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher,” the Supreme Court justice said. “So you could say in order to bring the price down, you are hurting these other people by not buying a car.”

Some analysts felt that Scalia could rule in favor of the president’s health care law after a 2005 ruling in which he voted to uphold federal legislation to ban marijuana within the states.

“In the concurrence (Scalia) said that Congress has the authority to regulate noneconomic, local activity if the regulation was a necessary part of some type of overall congressional scheme to regulate interstate commerce,” law analyst Betsy Goldman told Bloomberg News. “He believed the federal regulation of marijuana use within the states was necessary to the overall scheme of Congress wanting to prevent the interstate trade or movement of marijuana.”

Despite the slight glimmer that there was a possibility Scalia could rule in favor of the Affordable Care Act, Tim Lee from the Center for Individual Freedom believes that door might have been closed.

“A very slightly-open door was shutting,” Lee — who is the vice president of legal and public affairs at the institution — told CBSDC.

After today’s line of questioning from Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, Lee feels that the law will be overturned.

“If the Supreme Court overturns the mandate, the law itself is effectively unsustainable … it collapses under its own fiscal weight,” Lee told CBSDC. “The worst case for Barack Obama is the court throwing out the individual mandate and not the entire law.”

The people should know that goverment official need this law so their stock shares will be worth more. That’s how congress works things on their insider trading.Pass a bill to promote their stocks and/or give companies money so their stocks will bring more.

Scalia voted to keep Marijuana illegal in America in 2005 – on that basis alone he exposes himself as a hebetudinous fool with no knowledge of CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptor agonists and their role in mitigating cancer in humans…

Hey Susan, you forgot to mention that Chocolate also contains Anandamide which binds to CB1 and CB2 receptors to mimic the “Bliss” effects of mild marijuana. But you are correct about Scalia – he is a fascist just like all people that drink alcohol and hate pot.

National news about broccoli now. Unelected officials took over Washington and the media after the coup and cover up. Even most of the comments online are financed with your tax dollars. Big brother is trying to create the perception of public opinion while burying the truth. They think you can’t handle the truth. Fact of the matter is we have no democracy, president, and freedom of press is an illusion.

Our next election is shaping up to be as big of a sham as the last. Do you know why Sarah Palin’s bus tour was really canceled? Do you know why she stayed 30 miles away from the second debate and chose the death of Steve Jobs to announce that she’s not running? Know what leaked out? Sarah Palin and Cain aren’t in the race for the same reason, the truth leaked out.

Search PalinsDirtyLittleSecret for the biggest cover up in world history before it disappears forever much like me.

.he is a fascist just like all people that drink alcohol and hate pot’….Hey, Siggie, are you off your meds again? Nice of you to avoid using a broad brush to paint those who disagree with you.(sarcasm)

Scalia’s argument about the government requiring people to buy broccoli is ridiculous on it’s face. The government is not saying people must have insurance because it’s good for you, it is saying that if you don’t get insurance, when you need to seek medical attention and you don’t have insurance and can’t pay for the care, you will seek it, at a much higher cost, and pass that cost onto the taxpayers. If someone wants broccoli and cannot pay for it, there is no emergency broccoli center where they will be given broccoli for free and the cost gets passed on to taxpayers. If you can’t buy your own broccoli, you are S.O.L. Maybe Scalia should have eaten more fish (brain food) when he was growing up.

Richard,
The problem with your argument is that I really like lima beans, and don’t like to eat broccoli. I have no problem with my lima beans, but will son have to eat broccoli, and not be able to get it when I want it. But if Bob does not have access to lima beans currently, I am paying for his share now. With this bill, he will get broccoli, even if he doesn’t have a job. So, I am still paying for his broccoli, and I have to eat it, too. So, I lose my lima beans and pay either way.

Are you kidding Richard? If the goobermint UNCONSTITUTIONALLY gives itself the power to dictate that you MUST buy a product from a PRIVATE COMPANY, guess what– there is LITERALLY NOTHING that it CAN’T do after that.

Stupid, dude. The argument is a “chicken or the egg” deal on whether the feds have the ability to create commerce by requiring certain contracts between individuals, declaring that these contracts are interstate and then regulating them. what’s good for who is irrelevant. Just ‘cuz you want it doesn’t mean you can do it. That is how a constitutional republic works.

Richard. A lot of people have health insurance. Now you want them to lose theirs (Obama lied, you will lose your private health insurance, it’s like the coal plants, you will go bankrupt trying to oppose Obama.) and either pay a tax or join Obamacare Universal Health -with it’s rationing, death panels, and government regulations. Health care needs reforming, yes it’s true, but this isn’t about reforming the health system it’s about giving statists another segment of society to control.

if you can not afford to buy broccoli then you need food stamps to ensure you have a healthy diet which means the cost gets passed on to the tax payer so yes you must be forced to buy broccoli then the federal goverment can force all Americans to buy 5 guns since the cost of prisons and police protect is funded by tax payers & since gasoline taxes pay for roads that those who drive need , we can make everyone buy a gas guzzler to bring down the cost of highway construction because that will bring in more tax dollars to lower the cost of construction and on and on and on……

An article by the WSJ yesterday said the uninsured receiving healthcare they can’t pay only increased premium payments for others by 1.7%. Do we need to fundamentally transform our healthcare system for a 1.7% premium increase? That percent sounds logical. If 30 million are uninsured, many of them young, that’s only 10% of the population. What percent of 10% actually becomes so ill or injured they can’t pay for it?

So, the government has the Constitutional authority to make you buy products, but only when it “makes sense” to certain people? Who decides when it does and does not make sense? Is that the job of the Supreme Court now?

You act as if we have a system in which the government swoops in and pays for everyone’s health care, even if they do not have insurance. If that is the state of the world, then why do I hear liberals constantly going crazy that people are being denied access? If that’s really true, then everyone has all the medicine they want. Period. So, why are we acting like people are dieing unless we reform healthcare?

The answer is clear: because this is not the case. Therefore, your argument falls apart.

Wrong, Scalia is correct in that the government is telling you which insurance to buy by so strictly regulating it. For instance a practicing Catholic must by HI that will pay for an abortion. That is the broccoli.

What he was saying is that when the GOVERNMENT creates a market, and forces everyone to buy a product there is no end in sight. Health care is just another product, it should be left to the free market and you know damn well this bill FORCES us all to have health care and universal health care at that. This is not a “product” you can opt out of NOR will it be a product that you can shop around for. Scalia has more brains in his pinky that you have in your entire genetically defective family line. THAT I can guarantee. I am totally sick of these so-called experts parading total lies. Youre done, Richard, just like Susan Ph.D. You arent fit to shine Scalias shoes- or mine. Moron.

“Scalia’s argument about the government requiring people to buy broccoli is ridiculous on it’s face. The government is not saying people must have insurance because it’s good for you,”

The argument is “The Government will have to pay for your health insurance if you dont have it”

The Government can say “You are going to have to eat eventually anyway. And since McDonalds is bad for you, you must buy Broccoli. Saves the Government money because there will (hypothetically) be fewer fat people the Government will have to care for in the care programs.” His statement isnt ridiculous at all…

Or lets do it this way. In locations where its much easier to own guns/there are more gun owners, people are much, much less likely to be the victim of a violent crime. So… Owning a gun is safer for you, and will cut down on the cost of policing cities. Therefore, the Government can say you must own a gun.

Or how about this. Some in Government are running with this Global Warming nonsense and claiming its because people drive SUVs. They could say “its better for the environment, and inturn the health of everyone, and inturn saves the Government money if you don’t own a gas-burning car. So instead you must but a new $50K Chevy Volt every 4 years.”

All of those would be based off the same argument the Government is making now – 1) Saves Government Money 2) Better for (some) individuals/society

You could also literally fit anything you wanted into those two arguments though. Another quick case in point (getting to the more ridiculous) how about Hats? Hats shield your eyes from bad sun rays and therefore save on future doctor costs which you may or may not be paying for with Government assistance. New law under Obamacare argument – everyone must buy, and wear a hat.

Or how about this one – Foam matrices are better for your back. New Government law, every individual person must buy a new Foam Matrice every 3 years.

You could really go on like this forever, and in the end, there is very little the Government couldn’t force you to buy under Obama’s argument for Obamacare. It’s one gigantic step towards 1984 that luckily some people are smart enough to realize and fight against.

The Supreme Court is voting on the healthcare law AND deciding the 2012 Presidential Election, all in one June decision. If “Obamacare” is overturned, he wins reelection; if they uphold the law, the GOP nominee wins. SG Verrilli knows this and his “bumble and fumble” before the court today proves it. I guess you could believe that the questions the Justices threw at him truly caught him off-guard and that after months of preparation, he failed to see the “broccoli” question coming.

Brain, your argument doesn’t hold up. 0-bama and his wacho liberals passed 0-bamacare and paid dearly for it the last election cycle. Republicans can once again say I told this was a loser and look how much time the Democrats have wasted vs. being serious about a bipartisan health care reform bill that America wants vs one America has clearly rejected.

Huh? So if Obama’s signature piece of legislation is struck down as unconstitutional by the court; according to you that guarantees Obama gets reelected? The logic of that really escapes me. I would say, to the contrary, it would inspire the American people to finish the job and throw Obama out as well and a lot of greasy demoncrats along with him .

74% believe it should be overturned, which has to include alot of Dems’. in fact the last poll showed a majority of dems wanted to overturn the law.
How does overturning it mean that O gets re-elected????

Obamadinejad would benefit SOMEWHAT from it being shot down, in that it will help ease our raging depression heading toward the election. However, the premise of his automatically being reelected under that scenario makes the assumption that rational people would also embrace an arsonist for no longer trying to burn their house down after he’s arrested. Also, what would ever become of the fawning State Media phrase, “signature achievement of his presidency?”

Or the raging anger will be increased because the Dems spent so much time and energy on this while the economy suffered and Americans went without jobs and opportunities. We’ve had the longest stint of recession in history. Their priorities were misplaced on an unconstitutional health care bill while the health of the nation as a whole suffered. Selfish, self-centered people.

Yes Brain, I agree with Common Sense Payne, Obamacare is highly unpopular. And I’m sure the Democrat-Socialists will use a SCOTUS loss to accuse the Repubs. of throwing college students off their parents health plans and kicking old people off the operating table in the middle of a colon cancer operation, but it won’t matter a whole bunch when you consider Obama’s damage control team is on life-support now, can you imagine what they will be like in late August? It’s not easy propping up a president who is the worst by far in American history. Just how do you do it?

If Obamacare is thrown out it is likely to be a political disaster for Obama, and could very well be a nail in the coffin of his re-election hopes. Some Democrats believe such an outcome could allow Obama to run against a right-wing Supreme Court as well as a right-win, do-nothing Congress.

Um, what? The article gets exactly backwards. Scalia is making the point that the govt’t doesn’t force people to buy cars just because it would make cars cheaper, and that that is just fine as far as the law is concerned. One wonders if the author of this piece isn’t just seeing what he/she wants to see…

They got it right. They’re saying there was a slight chance he might vote in favor of the law, but now it seems he will vote against it. “Uphold” means to vote in favor of. Maybe you’re reading this as “hold up”, as in stop the law?

Summary judgment means one side wins without a trial. Sometimes that means the case is thrown out in favor of the defendant and in other cases it means judgment is awarded in favor of the plaintiff. No more, no less. It is also a mechanism used at the trial level to avoid a trial and is not available at the Supreme Court.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus

If you are one of those idiots who runs around questioning why God would “allow bad things to happen to good people” then you clearly no nothing about the Bible or God and are better suited keeping your mouth shut instead of looking like an idiot.

Scalia’s point is precisely why the Mandate will be deemed unconstitutional. Because if the Federal Gov’t can make all citizens purchase a good or service for the means of making that good or service cheaper for the rest of us…you could apply that logic to nearly any good or service. Scalia uses the car example, you could use the food example, which is a good one because buying and eating Broccoli for instance is good for two reasons, it’s healthy for us and everyone buying broccoli would dramatically lower the price of broccoli…BUT the gov’t can’t make you buy stuff, period. That logic could apply to nearly every good or service. It will be deemed unconstitutional, and should be for that simple reason.

on the contrary, if everyone HAD to buy broccoli, the price would go UP. Due to supply and demand, farmers would realize they had a forced commodity and price it accordingly. Then the futures market in broccoli would also drive up prices. Just sayin……..

But this really isn’t about price, it’s about power. The item folks would be FORCED to purchase doesn’t matter, it’s forcing someone to engage in an activity. Like forcing all men to pay for prostitutes, or for all citizens to pay for funeral services before they die, the list could be endless..

Feds forcing us to BUY anything to influence the market—IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And for the loons who think obama gets elected if this unconstitutional piece is overturned. Sorry, it will be viewed at best incompetence—and at worst an attempt to open the door to fascism in this country where the Feds could make you buy a car to help the auto industry.

Exactly. Forcing everybody to buy health insurance would make insurance costs go up as well, since the companies no longer have to entice customers as much. Notice how they were for this mandate, and how their stock has risen.

Auto insurance is state not federal…Libby are you just ignorant or just not mentally astute? Just because you hold a drivers license doesn’t mean you must have auto insurance, and just because you are breathing, you should not have to pay for government health insurance.

first you are not required by legislation that you must purchase a car, the federal government doesn’t regulate auto insurance the states do. and in most states you are only required to carry a policy that covers you for damage to another persons propriety or injury, you are not forced to have collision on you own propriety, but when you have a loan on a car you are required to have it because why? your covering the cost to the bank for a loss on the vehicle.
stop comparing apples to oranges it is irreverent to the conversation

You only have to buy car insurance if you want to get around in a car. There are lots of other ways to get from one local to another, i.e., bus, foot, train, plane, bike, boat, etc. For covering the risk of driving a piece of metal at high speeds, for having a “license to kill” in essense, you must pay for your risky behavior, that is, you must buy insurance. The government doesn’t force most people in NYC to purchase car insurance b/c most don’t want to assume the risk or fight the traffic. They’re off the hook. You’re only “on the hook” if you want to get there by car. So, in reply, the government DOES NOT mandate that citizens have auto insurance.

How would citizens, particularly liberals who support gov’t intervention at every turn, feell if the gov’t mandated that all those receiving subsidized healthcare were told they had to be regularly drug tested and if results came back positive would be forced into treatment or lose benefits. Will the gov’t force those same people to have their BMI’s monitored by doctors and force them on diets? Will they also force low income women onto birth control or worse, sterilization? It all seems like the stuff of futuristic novels and the movies but Obamacare is moving us in that direction by forcing us into accepting the terms of a contract just for being a citizen. Funny but being an illegal immigrant is looking pretty good right about now.

blow me Libby go fend for yourself you rotten leech – the right is not scaring the people – they are opening their eyes to the truth that they can see for themselese – it’s the self serving Left that makes that vision so horrifying.

Libby, it is YOU that is a traitor if anyone is. You are willing to give up your liberties, and force us to give up outs, just because you want what this legislation offers. Will you still feel the same when congress forces you to buy a GM car instead of another brand because the federal government still owns a big chunk of the company? How about if they pass a law that says that if you don’t buy and consume vitamins, you must pay more at the doctors office because your negligence is costing more money?

If this Federal mandate isn’t overthrown, the one last branch of government which the American people hope to sustain the importance of checks and balances in reinforcing and the limits of this government will be adversely lost completely. It is imperative that the SCOTUS understands the implications and practically Socialist, if not Communist power which this mandate would establish in basically allowing the Federal government to make the American people buy whatever they want them to regardless of its favor ability. They need to understand how monumental this decision will be, because if it is passed, the government will use this passage as a catalyst to convey ANYTHING they want to make people buy or penalize them for not doing so as considered Constitutional. They will reference this very case’s decision as its sole reasoning to expand what will likely become a massive power grab to make people buy other things, regardless of whether they want them or can even afford them. This decision will be as historically referenced as having an even larger impact than other major cases such as Roe vs. Wade. This is history in the making and if it is (hopefully) struck down, it will set a precedent in reinforcing that the Federal government does have limits despite the progressives intent to ultimately control every aspect of every citizen in this country.

If it was Consitutional it would have to cover everyone technically – it isn’t and it doesn’t, as seen by the many many concessions already made for waivers. This has been a huge usage of the poor and limited in vision folks who have been yet again convinced that the Dems give a rats arse about them and being lined up to become even more dependent. Disgusting really.

Scalia puts the logic of the present health care issue on the bottom shelf where the average citizen can reach the cookies. Thats is, by these parallel comparisons, people grasp the implications of what the government can do with our freedoms – any freedoms – using the leverage and precedent Obamacare could impose, if allowed. How you define the issue, or the cause, opens the door to how you argue and prejudice the case (be it with food, or cars, whatever the government thinks people must do to make sure all are “just” in a wealth-distributing way). That’s why left-wing news outlets criticize Chaney for the blessing for getting a heart transplant. Why is it unjust for him to do this, if he can and doctors will do it with risks understood? Yet, it’s not the government’s decision. But they can transfer that same communist-love-of-state logic to anything they deem as an excess of freedom (albeit they would not telll their Hollywood friends the same advice who might seek a transplant at 75+ years). The time has come to stuff Obamacare back into the hell-hole from whence it came.

1. Feds don’t require hunting licenses, states do.
2. You buy auto insurance to indemnify other’s interests; i.e. the other motorist’s vehicle should you damage it in an accident, or, the vehicle you are financing on behalf of the bank/finance company.
3. Municipalities require animal tags to ensure that you are a responsible pet owner and get your mutt or hairball barfer it’s shots.
4. See number 2.
5. Again, municipalities and states require business licenses, not the feds.

Folks the past three years have established one thing, there are two distinct types of Americans, patriotic Constitutional loving Americans and Socialistic/Communist American who will not stop until the Constitution is rendered meaningless.

Bottom line is clear, neither side is moving off their ideological position, thus we would all be wise to prepare for the inevitable civil war necessary to resolve the difference. Winner take all, lock and load “LET’S GET IT ON”

People are being suckered into believing this is a case that will be thoroughly evaluated. Plain and simple obamacare has absolutely no chance of being overturned, not the mandate, not a single part of it. However, the exemptions should be fought in court, they are clearly preferential and illegal

This is how the CBS article, paragraph 2 was written, “During Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments, Scalia challenged the health care law’s individual mandate which calls for virtually all Americans to have health insurance.” In reality, and I’m not being flippant here, it should be written, “…the health care law’s individual mandate which ORDERS all Americans except those organizations given a waiver by the president (currently over 1,000 – mostly unions) to BUY insurance.” It is a much more accurate statement and doesn’t not hide what is being done in subtleties. This is why the news media is becoming less respected over the years.

I do not want be forced to be in the same big boat with people who ruin their health (smoking, etc.) and rely on me having to pay for their irresponsibility. Conversely, I do not want to be in the big boat if it has rules preventing people from smoking etc.
I want each of us to have his own little boat where each can exercise his own freedom and personal responsibility.

You’re already in the same boat as these people. You’re paying for them right now…if you have health insurance, because of the uninsured you are paying for their cost. It actually benefits you to be in the same boat as them…unfortunately reason is not a valued asset in this country.

The problem is the law which requires treatment without payment. Why does the hospital not charge the person using the emergency room? Can Congress pass a law requiring Hertz and Avis to give cars to poor people when needed badly, cost passed on to those who pay for rental cars? Make cost shifting illegal, garnish wages of those who use health care and don’t pay. Charge the Government of Mexico for the illegal aliens it sends up here with health problems. Clean up the mess.

If you’re okay with people dying outside of hospitals because they can’t get help then we should go with your approach. Or if you’re okay with people being forced into abject poverty because of health care cost then we should go with your approach. Personally, I have more sympathy for people than to say. “You’re too poor…oh well.”

Emergency rooms are only required to stabilize serious conditions. You are still legally obligated to pay for services rendered. If you go with the intent of not paying you can be held criminally liable.

PH, you obviously have NO idea how emergency rooms are used by inner city minorities.
Do you REALLY think law enforcement would go after a black person for payment of an emergency room bill? Do you think law enforcement can even find a black person using the name and address given at the hospital? Do you think that black person on welfare would ever give up their drug and alcohol money to pay for an emergency room visit?
Get REAL!

I cannot believe Americans are willing to allow fellow countrymen and women and children’s lives to be ruined by medical issues. I went to one of the top 5 Private Schools in the United States. I met and engaged and became enriched with some of America’s brightest and best up and coming leaders.I elected to study in Canada for my UG and Grad school.
I have friends that are Lawyers and Doctors that have unfortunately have had Cancer already in their lives… If they lived in the United States, they would have ruined their families lives trying to save them… You know who you are. You and your justice system are the absolute bowels of modern society to wish to deny a fellow human being a god given possibility but when societal greed interrupts this potential saving grace…. What has society become? 50% of you would vote for this clown Romney? This alien Santorum? What planet are these guys from? You guys wonder why your country is lagging? Honestly…. It’s comical. You guys are a SNL Skit… standing O

Ryan, YOU are a bald-faced LIAR. I know MANY people that have had cancer and NONE of them or their families were financially ruined or even affected significantly. None of them are even close to attending a top 5 private school either.

What a stupid, moronic premise – People thought Scalia would vote for Obamacare. That would mean he would be sutltling the Constittuion and going against his prior rulings. Whoever came up with a premise like this, is crazy.

So, if we can be forced to buy insurance so as not to subsidize other who don’t, why can’t people be forced to get a job so we who work don’t have to subsidize those who won’t? Oh but if we only had a REAL press instead of a liberal cheerleader squad.

They want to buy heath insurance. Next they will force everyone to buy dental insurance. Everyone need to have their teeth clean. Then we all all need to buy vision insurance. Why not add a health club member while the dems are at it. What NEXT?

Scalia’s argument only makes sense if a specific item was being mandated in the health care market and it’s not. If people had the wealth of Bill Gates then there would be no debate at all about this issue, because when people entered the market they would have the assets necessary to make the purchase. Because of the health care market’s astronomical cost most people cannot afford to pay cash when they need those services. Furthermore, we’re talking about entering the health care market not purchasing a specific item so the broccoli reference is not valid. If you cannot force people to be liable for their coverage when they do go to hospitals then loose hospitals of the responsibility of having to treat everyone that shows up no matter what. How can you force people to take a loss to cover my services but then not force me to be insured to pay for them? This all sounds like a bunch of political bologna to me.

I think the essential question is:
Should the government have the right to force you to:
— buy something simply because you are alive?
— sign a contract with a company simply because you are alive?
Note I said simply because you are alive.
So it is not like the requirement to buy liability insurance if you drive a car etc. You choose to drive a car
I think most Americans would answer NO, OF COURSE NOT.
How could anyone consider them self to be free.

We’re a gaggle of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your site offered us with useful information to work on. You have performed a formidable process and our whole community will be thankful to you.

to me the problem is that for this tremendous windfall for the insurance industry we are asking NO concessions by them! if everyone must buy their product, then they must provide a sliding scale for premiums, which must be no more than, say, 1/2 of 1 pct of income, and (for example) free choice of healthcare, including non-traditional avenues, if that is what the insured wants to pursue. if i am forced to purchase “insurance” then i want it to pay for my pot Rx.

Debbi, the real problem is that we are forced to buy insurance. The root of the problem is that hospitals, like schools, are forced to treat those who are either not citizens, don’t have jobs, or are otherwise not invested in the system. Neither Health Care or Education (See Plyler v Doe) is a Constitutional Right. It has simply been made so by Judicial fiat. So unless we look at the fundamental problem of texpayers being FORCED to a) pick up the tab for the uninsured and b) forced to carry insurance now from the government, we are all just harking at the branches of evil instead of the root. There WAS a time where ever employed person has Blue Cross, the poor had Medicare or some other assistance and the rest either bought their own, went to clinics or helped themselves.

hello there and thank you in your info ? I have definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however experience a few technical issues the use of this web site, as I experienced to reload the website lots of instances previous to I may get it to load correctly. I have been puzzling over in case your web hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances instances will often have an effect on your placement in google and could injury your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am including this RSS to my email and could glance out for a lot extra of your respective interesting content. Ensure that you replace this once more soon..